typewriter keys, no woman's touch was allowed. moreover, women's participation in a larger event seems distinctly segregated. radcliffe mounted three exhibits in the buildings on the history of radcliffe, the work of women in science, and books written by alumni. three radcliffe officers were allowed to attend as delegates, and radcliffe gave a dinner for women's college heads and representatives. the only direct active participation of women was the inclusion of present and former female members of the coral society and a tercentenary chorus. it seems the need to provide sopranos and altos without the ghastly 18th century french solution overrode taboos in this

particular instance. well, times have changed, and i'm here to recognize the sweet of this change and try to understand resistance to it. i'm somewhat of an outsider, for the exception of my one-year job at what is now the schlesinger, and my job at the teaching. i've lived and worked outside of harvard. ive come back many times to research. was a fellow at the radcliffe institute, as you know, and continue today my long and happy association with the schlesinger as a reader. of course, i've studied and written about higher education in women's colleges. so my talk today will focus on these things. and i want you to pay attention for it really is complicated. i'm going to talk about origins and exclusion, history and tradition, prestige and privilege, innovation, access, accommodation and invisibility.

and struggle and equity. let me begin with origins and exclusion. i don't think it really began as a taboo, but rather as professor jeanie suggested, though perhaps exaggerated as part of the social order of the time generally unquestioned by women as well as men. but origins are critical for they can have great sticking power. in considering harvard, the question then becomes what have been the lasting effects of harvard's founding in 1636 as an all-male institution of higher learning? and in asking this, i don't deny, as drew as reminded us, that women have always been in harvard as workers and donors, as invisible helpmates to fathers, husbands and sons, not only as life's mainstay but as intellectual collaborators. but yet, the heart of harvard as an educational institute is the

undergraduate college of college and professor schools. students, faculty, dean, presidents, and fellow overseers are at the center. so today, my concern will be with these. to the disappointment of some, my focus is on bodies, not minds. with women as a presence, not with women as subjects of study. for though i've given much of my life to the study of women's history and the development of women's studies, i've only a short time with you this afternoon. the rich history of the entry of women into the curriculum of harvard must be postponed until another time. one cannot really think about exclusion in the abstract. at harvard, the exclusion of women at the founding didn't act alone to shape its history. connected to exclusion by a silken cord were tradition and privilege. as we know from this very

occasion, harvard has a long history, going back to 1636. initially founded to educate an all-male clergy, by the 18th century, harvard was offering polish to the sons of the rising mercantile elite. their worldly success meant that association with harvard required an authority, a certain cachet. during the early industrial revolution of the 19th century, boston blue blood and harvard rose together. i remember at the time when levert saltonstahl was senator of massachusetts. it was commemorating ten generations from the 1620s. this legacy from harvard's prestigious male past is perpetuated in the names on the houses on the river and continues to have cultural

power. harvard had other male students, serious ones from farming families in the lower ranks of the middle class. unlike their elite peers who were more interested in play and acquiring polish, these outsiders were studied hard and were generally despised by the wealthier college men in the class. for the outsiders, harvard was a means to rise in the world. even to gain knowledge. not a way to confirm a gift in status. when they graduated, they were typically grateful for the boost that harvard had given them. of course, as well as harvard's sons, the saltanstalls and lowell's had daughters. they had what they had been told to value, position and privilege. this complicated bringing women into the core of harvard. so now i want to talk about

access. the women who start eknocking o the doors of harvards were not them, but daughters of the struggling middle class, often schoolteachers seeking instruction in science. they were thrown a few crumbs, access to a lecture or a lab now and then. the demand was certainly there. when harvard opened its university lectures in 1863, women flocked to attend. by 1870, women were 72% of the students attending the lectures. but the lectures were suspended in 1872 when harvard established its graduate department and it was all male. perhaps you don't know it but it focused on women as its faculty and student body. here i draw on the wonderful

work of sally. anna was thees tense of privilege as the daughter of george ticner, harvard's first professor of modern languages, and anna elliott ticner, the sister of charles william elliott. many women with both harvard and civic connections including elizabeth kerry agassi became associated with the society as such porters, teachers, and division heads. the goal was to educate those girls unable to attend college due to a lack of money or to domestic duties. a secondary goal was to provide, as shwager put it, an outlet for the instructors for their own

scholarly ambitions and social needs. each teacher provided assignments and corresponded monthly with students. this society began small, but within two years had 20 -- had 213 students from 24 states and canada. at its peak, in the early 1880s, over 1,000 students were enrolled. the reading came from harvard courses and the work required monthly written reports that included memory notes, abstracts, and essays. alice james was one of the students, the sister of william and henry. at the very same time, a group of women, including elizabeth agassi, began to push back against harvard's exclusion of women. in 1872, the women's educational association of boston was

formed. they included the wife of a young philosopher, as they sought entry to harvard by various means they met resistance. and reported, we were told not to disturb the present system of education, which is the result of the wisdom and experience of the past. and bearses so large a part in the molding of our republican life. although they began to get some support from harvard professors, all male, of course, president charles william elliott was deeply opposed, and so was the all male harvard corporation. what was the objection? here must -- one must return to origins, history, tradition, and privileges.

as the women of the educational association learned, in the late 19th century, harvard saw itself as a nursery for the nation of leadership and scholarship. although harvard men were general sympathetic to the idea of educated women, who as mothers of the republican and teachers bore responsibility for the young. they did not want women to study at the sacred grove reserved for the future ruling elite. the scarce precious resources of harvard should not be dissipated. moreover, with knowledge of the randy fellows under their charge, some worried about the morale of coeducation. oddly, from today's perspective, young college men agreed, this essentially came from a class biases. elite men set the tone of

undergraduate life at harvard in the 19th century and the women came from modest backgrounds. bringing the despised outsiders. in addition to these factors, we moog might remember professor mcgooifer's example of taboo, the fishing expedition believed to be worn by woman's touch. gradually by starts and stops, a way was found. and this was by shear innovation. create a new institution for women, and place it near harvard and get harvard professioners to teach the same courses that they taught men in the yard. in fall of 1879 the society of collegiate women school opened with 27 students. familiarly called the annex, it was a curious institution. it was supported by women and men who were in awe of harvard.

as it's opening announcement said, quote, the relation to the intellectual world outside is maturity of thought and methods, its claim on cultivated minds everywhere given a hold on our respect and affection which women share with men. but harvard is represented by its president and corporations stood adamantly against bringing women into the university in all roles other as donors, helpmeats, clerical or library assistants. how did women claim access in that was through accommodation. the annex was created in a manner calculated so that in the words of the lady of the executive committee, quote, it stirs no prejudices, excite nos opposition, involves no change of policy for the university. and this brings us back to elizabeth agassi, the woman who smoothed the way, and with others of the ladies committee,

raised the money necessary for the annex's opening in 1879. the price was invisibility. the annex began with no building. only rented rooms. for classes taught by members of the harvard faculty. the young women, according to an early brochure, quietly pursue their occupation unnoticed atz the daughters of any cambridge rest departments. there were to be no dormitories, no college life. ing a fw ing ing agassi did not want the dorms to become a college life. so it began as a unique institution of higher learning for women. and like the other six of the sisters that it joined in the time. had no separate faculty or facility, but drew on the male instructors of harvard. over 200 women were taking

courses taught by 70 men. initially graduates received no ba. instead of a diploma, they got a certificate. admittedly, association with harvard carried great prestige, that was both an advantage and, i believe, a curse. for it made the annex, a hostage to harvard. as early as 1883, the society decided to raise $100,000 to induce harvard to accept it as a branch of the university. harvard refused. harvard also refused to turn certificates into diplomas. harvard refused to recognize the annex in any official way. this meant it was free to forbid its faculty to teach women on the side anyway that it chose. they got them to seek a new contractual relation. again, this would be innovation.

agassi negotiate with the president an agreement that turned the annex into radcliffe college. har vard oversaw the annex. designed its degrees. harvard's president and fellows became members of the visiting committee of the institution, responsible for appointing instructors and examiners. in 1893, agassi persuaded the society of the collegiate instruction of women to vote for the agreement, take the name radcliffe college, and give the full ability to grant degrees. in time, undereffective leadership, radcliffe emerged as a strong institution with a firm material base. we know the brilliant students it attracted and the fine education they received. but there may have been costs of

which we do not know. what did it mean that all the faculty were men? what can we learn from this statement by radcliffe alum. she wrote about her feelings that at radcliffe, she had somehow entered into that great company of scholars. you felt how init inially much there was to learn and how little you could ever attain to. it was humbling and inspiring. so, did the fact that the great company of scholars were all male deter her from becoming one herself? for better or worse, professors are models as well as inspirers. what does it mean to a woman student that there are no female models, did that make learning humbling rather than empowering? to harvard's faculty, all seemed normal. even as wise a man as

psychologist gordon alport known as prejudice could write as lates a 140 to a woman academic who was seeking employment in the graduate school -- in the summer school, excuse me, "radcliffe," he stated, has to faculty and summer school, only harvard teachers teach there and harvard has no women teachers, silly, perhaps, but traditional and unexceptional." i want to dwell for a moment on the story of mary caulkins, a member of the wealthy faculty. i do so because it allows some insight into the range of forces operating at harvard and the stubborn of the governing bodies. a young and talented smith graduate. in 1887 to teach greek. but the head professor in philosophy was seeking for

someone to introduce the new field of psychology and saw her potential. she offered calkins the position under the condition that she take graduate work in psychology. here was the dilemma. german universities were the mecca, but they either refused to teach women or made life difficult for them. yale and michigan accepted calkins but they lacked what she thought it was essential, a psychology laboratory. harvard had a famous one and william james and royce, requested that she be admitted in the seminar, and she was refused out right. than calkins' father wrote on his daughter's behalf, he stated, using the rules of accommodation, his daughter's admission to the seminar, quote, did not involve the question of coeducation in general and cannot be fairly quoted as an

embarrassing precedent, for we ask only post-graduate and professional instruction for one who is already a member of a clin college faculty. har vrd agreed on those terms. but it was officially noted, by accepting this privilege, ms. calkins does not become a student in the university, entitled to renlg station. in the fall of 1890, the principals of psychology came out, and calkins began working with him, she turned out to be the only student in his course. she also began to study at clark university. when she returned to teach psychology at wellesley in the fall of 1891, she set up a psychology laboratory at the college, one of the first dozen in the country. when she inquired about further study, she learned that hugo munsterberg was moving to

harvard and would conduct the psychology lab. beginning in 1892, she studied with him for three years and from the outcert published in important psychological journals. he sought her admission to the ph.d. program, writing to elliott the governing board, and i quote. her publications and her work here do not let any doubt to me that she is superior to all candidates of the philosophical phd during the last years. more than that, she is surely one of the strongest professors of psychology in this country. the records for the harvard corporation, october 29, 1894 noted that munsterberg's request was considered and refused. nonetheless, calkins submitted her thesis. she is stubborn, on association of ideas to the department and was examined by its members.

the report read that she was examined before proves sore james, royce, munsterberg and santiago, among others. twlees no slouches, and they, quote, unanimously voted she satisfied the requirements of the phd. this, too, was noted in harvard corporation records. her thesis became published articles, and her work in wellesley's lab became published studies. in 1901 she had her first book, "introduction to psychology." in 1902 radcliffe offered her the position and she did not accept. she continued to teach at wellesley and continued as president of the american psychological association and the american philosophical society. i'm sure not at the same time. she wrote four books and over 100 articles, evenly divided between psychology and philosop philosophy. in 1929, a group of philosophers and psychologists, harvard

graduates all, sent a petition to harvard's president to grant her the harvard phd. it outlined her achievements and testified to her international reputation. the university concluded, quote, there was no adequate reason for granting her the phd. case closed. there's nothing rational to be argued here. i think it's essentially a case of exclusion, history, tradition and privilege now being joined by taboo. but looked at inner way, it is clear from this account that radcliffe became the side door opening graduate education in arts and sciences to women. in 1894 president elliot responded to a powerful alumnus on the question of harvard giving phds to women. no, elliot insisted, with paternalistic fervor, the doctoral degree must be read by

radcliffe. otherwise the fledgling college would lose its legitimacy. radcliffe offered masters degrees from the beginning, and the phd, as you now know, from 1902. oddly given the difficulties calkins faced harvard graduate courses were declared open to women as early as radcliffe's 1894 charter. and by 1962, when radcliffe ceased to admit women or grant degrees, 784 phds had been granted to women. you should know i have my own history, both as a wellesley graduate and a harvard phd. little did i know in fall 1962 when i first applied to harvard graduate school in history that i was stepping on new ground. when i didn't get accepted, i knew i had been discriminated against, and in spring 1963 went in to protest my rejection to dean kirby miller, the recently

displaced dean of radcliffe graduate school who was trying to act then as the advocate for women. she looked at my record and told me i was right. i clearly had been discriminated against. she then informed me that she would not take my case. why, i ask? because she had lost two better ones in the last week. i did not know then the full meaning of what she was probably trying to tell me. now that she no longer had control over or voice in graduate admissions, harvard was free to discriminate against women. in the year following, i was instructed by a member of the history faculty at harvard not to apply in history but in american civilization because it did not discriminate. minor accommodation. so if one steps away from harvard college and the faculty of arts and sciences, a more

complex picture emerges. access seems not so freighted, accommodation not so mandated. perhaps the prestige factor weighs less heavily here or perhaps we might express it in this formula. the less the prestige, the easier the access. the harvard grad school of education, by the way, prestige is not related to greatness. the harvard grad school of education became the first of the post-graduate schools to take in women in 1920. its graduates were the first women to receive harvard degrees. its dean, the first female dean at the university, would patricia graham please stand so that we can acknowledge her. [ applause ] harvard medical school is very

interesting. medicine is one of the first professions in which women who had long been health practitioners as mid-wives, nurses, family members sought na'arai. in 1847 harriet hunt wrote to dr. oliver wendall holmes to ask for permission to attend medical lectures. although dr. holmes supported this, the harvard corporation denied the request. in 1850, hunt applied again. she, too, was stubborn. this time the male medical students protested her admission along with that of three male african-americans. during world war i, a shortage -- there was a shortage of physicians, and a man emerged for women to study medicine at radcliffe, but it was not realized. a later plan allowed women to study at the harvard medical school for a radcliffe phd in

medical sciences. the first real admission came in 1945 granting its first mds in 1949. the medical school was distinctive in one regard. in 1919 it appointed dr. alice hamilton to a professorial position in industrial medicine. she later taught at the school of public health. at the harvard law school petitions by women to enter began as early as 1871 and continued. their numbers included inez mulholland, vasser graduate and suffer gist. in 1915, 15 women petitioned and were denied. in a letter to harvard graduate walter lippmann, then of the new republic, president lowell said, quote, harvard is one of the very few institutions for men alone, and our -- and in our opinion had better remain so.

the law school was successful but, quote, the admission of women might affect it injuriously. it should be noted in 1915 women were still a small minority in the legal profession, but the number of female lawyers was growing exponentially. major law schools were opened to women by 1930. the harvard law school admitted its first women in 1950. in 1893 the harvard divinity school denied the petition of its alumni to admit women. it was only open to women for graduate study in 1955. parenthetically 1955 was the first year that women were granted access to morning services at appleton chapel. the business school worked out an arrangement with radcliffe in the late 1930s to build a program in business administration. again, with a radcliffe degree.

beginning in 1959 graduates of the program were admitted to the second year of the mba program at the harvard business school, and then they were in. finally arts and sciences. it took first a father's desire it honor his late son and distinguished anthropologist daughter and then a genius to break the lock keeping women out of the faculty. the samuels murray jr. and radcliffe professorship was established at f.a.s. in 1948 for a distinguished woman scholar. the first woman to hold the chair was -- was helen maude camm, a constitutional historian, followed in 1954 by the anthropologist court debois. its current holder is katherine park in the history of science. is katherine here?